Well said Jon. Freelance photographers, writers, designers, etc. are the people who produce the vast majority of "content" in most magazines (both print and online). But over the past 35 years we have faced a continual assault on our incomes and on our rights (and no, this has little to do with the Internet). Publishers like Bonnier no longer give a rat's @ss about the freelancers they work with; it's only about rights and money -- they get all the rights, and we get a shrinking amount of $$$. In that light, freelancers have no choice but to license as much to as many as we can. As long as the freelancer was careful not sell the same license to the different publishers, then I say good on him!I'm pretty sure neither Mark Pillsbury, Peter Nielsen, nor Billy Black is pleased by the fact their 2 covers are virtually identical... Some folks up in Bass Harbor, Maine, are likely the only ones getting a chuckle out of this one
And, neither publication would pay extra for "Exclusivity" for those shots, they are the sort of typical fare that would rate the standard payment for each magazine's cover shot...
This was a mistake or oversight, no doubt about it... The standard agreement that a photographer signs with Bonnier (publishers of CW) stipulates that a "substantially similar" image used on their covers may not be used on any other magazine cover not published by Bonnier...
Over the past 2 decades, the rights of photographers have been more seriously eroded than those of cruisers wanting to anchor in Florida, these days...
That said, I'm sure both the photog and the editors are embarrassed and bothered by this situation. It makes everyone look amateurish.
